Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from an ejectment suit filed by the appellant seeking recovery of possession of a house property bearing Door No.12-A and 12-B (Old No.12-A) located in Mosque Street, Royapuram, Madras-13. The appellant claimed ownership of the superstructure, having purchased it by a registered sale deed dated September 13, 1975 from one Mohd. Hussain. According to the appellant, the third respondent came into possession of the property as a sub-lessee under Mohd. Hussain. The suit impleaded respondents Nos.1 to 3, with the appellant asserting that the third respondent was a sub-lessee of respondents Nos.1 and 2. The trial court and the first appellate court accepted the appellant's claim and found that the appellant was the owner of the property and that the third respondent was a sub-lessee of respondents Nos.1 and 2. However, the Madras High Court, in Second Appeal No.372 of 1983, reversed these concurrent findings and dismissed the suit by its judgment dated April 12, 1996. Aggrieved, the appellant approached the Supreme Court by special leave. The Supreme Court noted that the property was situated in a triangular passage leading to Mosque Street, Adem Saheb Street, and Thoppa Modali Street in Madras City. It was an admitted position that the third defendant had purchased the same land under a registered sale deed in the year 1969, which was much earlier than the appellant's purchase of the alleged superstructure in 1975. The High Court also found that the third defendant had purchased the superstructure. The appellant sought to contend that the lands subject matter of the purchase of the superstructure by the appellant and the respondents were different and distinct, and therefore the High Court's finding was incorrect. The Supreme Court, without going into that question, observed that the appellant had proceeded on the premise that the third respondent was a sub-lessee of respondent-defendant Nos.1 and 2, alleged to have been let in by Mohd. Hussain, who was said to be the owner of the superstructure from whom the appellant claimed title. In effect, the decree sought was against the real owner of the land, namely, the third defendant. Since the suit as framed was not correctly decreeable, the High Court was right in rejecting the claim and dismissing the suit. Accordingly, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the High Court's judgment, with no order as to costs. The decision turned on the defect in the frame of the suit and the failure to seek relief against the proper party, rather than on any determination of title to the property.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Maintainability of Suit - Ejectment Suit Not Decreeable Against Real Owner - Not mentioned - The appellant sought ejectment and recovery of possession based on purchase of superstructure, alleging the third respondent was a sub-lessee of the previous owner; the High Court found the third respondent had purchased the land in 1969 and the superstructure, making him the real owner. The Supreme Court held that since the decree sought was effectively against the real owner of the land, the suit as framed was not correctly decreeable, and dismissed the appeal. (Paras Not mentioned)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the suit for ejectment as framed by the appellant was maintainable when the decree sought was effectively against the real owner of the land, the third defendant, and not against a sub-lessee
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the High Court's judgment, holding that the suit as framed was not correctly decreeable because the decree sought was effectively against the real owner of the land, the third defendant. No costs were awarded.
Law Points
- A suit for ejectment framed on a premise of sub-tenancy is not correctly decreeable when the decree sought is effectively against the real owner of the land
- the court may dismiss the suit without examining the question of distinct identity of lands if the foundational premise is defective
